Abolition of Capital Punishment - Essay Example

Abolition of Capital Punishment Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the sentence passed in a court of law where the life of a person found guilty of a heinous crime would be legally pre-terminated by the State at a certain point in time. Whether capital punishment should be upheld or abolished has been one of the most contentious issues in the justice system, not only in America but all over the world. On one side of the controversy are those who support it because they find the death penalty a just and effective punishment that has deterred and would continue to discourage people from committing heinous crimes (Tucker, 2003). On the other side are those that the first side calls the "abolitionists", people like this writer who are against capital punishment and who want it abolished. This paper explains the reasons why capital punishment must be abolished, analyzing and explaining the opposing views in the hopes that such a position is objective, reasonably justified and supported. Undoubtedly, the question as to whether it is right and just to take away the life of a human being, no matter how wretched or criminal, is an issue that contains a high degree of intellectual and emotional content. This is an issue that affects us all, and the materials available on the topic are charged with a load of subjectivity, unavoidable because individual and collective perceptions differ on several key points of the issue, and concepts such as "justice", "punishment", "heinous", and "crime", just for starters, admit varying degrees of propriety. Take, for example, the term "just punishment". Who determines what is just, and when is a punishment just Why is it a just punishment to sentence to death a serial killer found guilty of murdering a dozen victims, compared to the "just punishment" of a politician who sent tens of thousands of soldiers to die in a "useless" war (think thirty-plus years ago) by not getting re-elected to another term While one might say that serial murder is an unjust crime and that fighting a just war is not, the fact that legal concepts resting on a foundation of laws created by men (and women) allows a flexibility of interpretation that strikes at the core of our discussion. Doubts about the shaky foundations on which an argument (or a part of it) rests should at the least lead one to conclude with intellectual honesty that in the face of uncertainty, would it not be best to stay on the side of caution Such is the basic position of this writer given the complex nature of the issue at hand: that capital punishment must be abolished because the empirical evidence on which to establish intellectual certainty seems to be in favor of a cautious course of action. Before considering the empirical evidence such as statistics and the more commonly-known public arguments presented by either side, the most logical starting point to defend this writer's intellectual position is to define the concepts that facilitate our understanding of the issue: the value of human life, justice as a concept and a system, crime and punishment, order, and society. The core of the capital punishment issue is the value of human life. Those who support the death penalty cite it as a core of their argument for social justice to be satisfied. They argue that putting to death the person who took away a life (or many lives) would give just satisfaction to the victim, to those the victim left behind (family and friends), and also to the social order, a characteristic of society whereby justice needs to be upheld for order to be established. A corollary is that if justice is not served by a like-for-like punishment where the criminal is made to suffer the same fate (death) as the victim, society would end in chaos as people would not be deterred from committing the same crime (Anderson, 2005). The basic faults of this line of argument are the deceptive and contradictory valuation of human life, its flawed strategy for restoring and establishing social order, and a faulty view on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Those who support the death penalty promote the subtle deception that one life is equal to another, that they have more or less the same value, and that taking away one life (the victim) can be "justly" punished by taking away the life of the criminal (Koukl, 1998). This is deceptive because there is no real objective way of putting a quantified value to a human life that would lead to the conclusion that terminating the life of a criminal (plus whatever monetary damages are paid, if any) would satisfy the demands of justice. Just think of all the potential arguments along this line given our knowledge that every human being is capable of doing good and doing bad. It can never be just to terminate the life of someone who is capable of performing good acts in life that could outweigh in the eyes of society the evil acts already performed. It is likewise not just for the victim's loved ones to send the message that the victim's life can be equated to a "fixed" value: millions of dollars in damages and terminating the life of someone who may have done evil things in the past but who is capable of repenting for the crime and doing well. This core argument characterized by hope is one of the key messages of the abolitionists, who see each person as unique and capable of changing for the better. The valuation of human life also contains a subtle contradiction because while it claims to uphold the value of every human life, it is biased in favor of the victim. Every condemnation of a criminal to suffer capital punishment puts a limit to the value of the lives of both the victim and the criminal. The message is subtle but powerful: "Life (of the victim) is precious, so let's end it (life of the criminal)." Every single human life is precious; every human being has the potential to be good. Passing a life sentence on a criminal keeps the equation more open-ended, hopeful and optimistic, adding more value to the life of the victim because of the potential good that can come out of the person serving the life sentence and the potential good that can be enjoyed by society, including the families of the victims and the criminal. Real life examples abound of the powerful impact on the social order of the conversion and repentance of criminals, and the emotional and moral relief of victims' families who learned to accept and to forgive. If we consider also the number of people condemned to death who were later discovered to be innocent, the whole equation of the value of life and the restoration of the social order can be completely turned the other way, because it is not too remote to think that many have been unjustly put to death in the past. The bloods of these innocent victims are in the hands of those who continue to support capital punishment, and while they prefer to think of it as collateral damage, this writer thinks that it is a gross miscarriage of justice. The Innocence Project Home Page (2007) alone claims that some 205 people have been exonerated for crimes they did not commit. This is supported by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) Fact Sheet (DPIC, 2007, p. 2). This brings the discussion to the issue of the restoration and establishment of justice and the social order. Those who support the death penalty, basing their arguments on a flawed view of the value of human life as had already been seen, proceeds to a view of justice and social order that is equally flawed. Their arguments rest on a series of philosophical assumptions that are likewise full of subtle contradictions: that justice should be the cornerstone of the legal system, that justice will be served and the social order restored only if the punishment is proportionate to the crime, and the death penalty is the only (italics mine) punishment for violent criminals and murderers if justice will be served (Anderson, 2005, Chapter 1: Argument 1). First, the cornerstone of the legal system should be the good of every person in society. Justice is only one such good (many human, economic, social, religious, and political rights are goods that are probably more important than justice) that the legal system must protect and uphold. There are many examples in real life where justice must give way to a higher good, such as the basic human right to life. That is why in most civilized States, for example, it may not be illegal for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread. This minor exception is included here to show that justice is not the main objective of the legal system as Anderson claims, and that there are more important social values than justice that the legal system must uphold and protect. This is the basis of the common saying that "Justice ends where charity begins", and this is shown by real life examples of a parent or friend who forgives, show compassion, and learn to understand. Second, while one cannot disagree that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime, there are many ways of determining what would be a just proportion, and much less does the concept of proportionality necessarily mean that a life has to be exchanged for another. The fact (LII, 2007) that there are exceptions in the death penalty laws that prohibit the sentencing of criminals with mental illnesses, who are juveniles, or who are pregnant women prove that determining what is proportionate to the crime is an arbitrary legal act that shows bias against healthy adult males. Real justice cannot be served if there is bias in the system, and yet those who favor capital punishment argue that they support it because they want justice to be proportionately served. Third, it is not true that capital punishment is the only punishment that is proportionate for those who commit heinous crimes. Inherent in this argument is the belief that the penalty of death is a crucial factor for minimizing criminality in society, which is one of the goals (and not the main one at that) of justice in maintaining the social order. According to the DPIC (2007, p. 3), police chiefs in the U.S. place capital punishment as the last of seven measures that are effective in crime reduction, behind (1) reducing the number of guns, (2) having more police officers doing their rounds, (3) imposing longer prison sentences, (4) simplifying court rules, (5) improving the economy and providing jobs, and (6) reducing drug abuse. Working on these measures could be more beneficial for serving justice and upholding the social order. Since every crime is committed for a reason, which explains why the legal system allows a host of exceptions ranging from young age to insanity, the best solution according to common sense is to identify the reasons and to act on them. The State and its legal system, if it really wants justice to be served and the social order to be maintained, must work towards eradicating the underlying reasons for committing crimes. Otherwise, order in society will continue to rest on shaky foundations that open it to more injustice, both in encouraging more people to commit crimes and in the punishment of the criminals themselves. Although it is not the intention of this writer to compare criminals to pests, the analogy that can be used is that the death penalty is like swatting flies. Unless the source of the garbage is sanitized so that the flies could not breed, the pests will continue to come. Criminality is like a social hydra with many causes, and the best deterrent is to go beyond Band Aid solutions like the death penalty and to reach into the reasons why people commit crimes. Looked at this way, it can be seen that the core cause of every crime is a form of injustice, a social wrong that can never be solved by an unjust solution resting on equally unjust and shaky intellectual and legal foundations. Notwithstanding the case of the mentally insane for which the death penalty does not hold in most States, in America and in the world, a person turns into a criminal because s/he thinks that the injustice done to his/her person could be "corrected" by performing the criminal act. The perceived injustice may have been merely thrown out of proportion, or it could have been a purely subjective conclusion, or the result of a faulty line of reasoning. Even the most heinous crimes committed out of greed, lust, or premeditated cruelty have at their root a perception of injustice, no matter how flawed the connection may be in the criminal's mind. It is at this level of justice and the social order that States and their legal systems must focus. Aside from the six measures identified by police chiefs above, a comprehensive listing of all the possible causes that could lead to mistaken (although in some cases justified, e.g., cases of racial discrimination and abuses of police power) perceptions of injustice in society and that eventually lead to heinous crimes would be tedious, but some of the other more obvious social issues can be mentioned here for the State to work on. What immediately come to mind are measures that make it easier for parents to care for other family members so that children can grow up to be good citizens, balanced State intervention in the capitalist economic system so that everyone who wants a job can have one, improving the educational system, and minimizing or totally eradicating opportunities for corruption in both the public and private sectors. Each of these measures is admittedly complex and would take a long time to achieve. All utopias are long-term dreams. In fact, democracy continues to be a work-in-progress, in America and everywhere else in the world. Proponents of the death penalty acknowledge this, but by proposing that capital punishment be used as a deterrent that sends a strong signal to would-be heinous criminals that they cannot take advantage of the State's shortcomings and injustices (after all, is it not the State's job to guarantee, among many other things, the safety of every individual against criminals) because the State will get them in the end, such a strategy is a lie, an exercise in futility, and a way of undermining the arrival at a just and long-term solution. Sufficient empirical evidence, such as those proposed by Radelet & Akers (1998), proves that capital punishment does not deter crime. In fact, as Stewart (1998) argued, severe penalties in the past failed to deter criminals, and States with death penalties continue to have high crime rates. What this shows is that, perhaps, capital punishment looks like an efficient way of dealing with crime, but it is not effective: "You commit a crimeyou get caughtare tried, sentenced, and put to deathNext!" This makes it obvious that built into capital punishment as a measure to establish the social order is a gross disrespect for the dignity of the person, which is why it fails as a deterrent. Add some "injustices" in the justice system and you have a vicious cycle that brings the whole social order into a dead-end of cruelty, injustice, and more crime. Capital punishment fails not because there will always be criminals, even heinous ones, even in a human society that is "almost" perfect (assuming it could exist at all). It fails because as the arguments above show, it is intellectually flawed, it stands on a shaky foundation of false and biased assumptions and faulty logic, and it is hypocritical: its claims of justice are in fact a form of injustice. Capital punishment masks the inefficiencies of the State and covers up its faults, creating an artificial comfort zone that is a perfect breeding ground for the seeds of crime to germinate, sprout, and thrive. If on the basis of these reasons alone capital punishment must be abolished, adding empirical evidence makes abolition an even more attractive option. However, such an advocacy is not easy. The number of States in America that have abolished the death penalty is still in the minority (12 states versus 38 that still have the death penalty) (DPIC, 2007, p. 1). According to Amnesty International (2007): 90 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; 10 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes; and, 30 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. This brings to 130 the total number of countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There continues to be 67 other countries and territories that retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller. This also shows that support for the death penalty is not universal and, therefore, affirms that it is not the effective solution that its supporters claim it to be. The emotional undertones that characterize the debate on the issue in America reflect the depths to which our society is sinking. Data from DPIC (2007, p. 3-4) show that more Americans support the death penalty even if they know that the States that do so have the highest crime rates. Given an alternative such as lifetime imprisonment without parole, Americans change their opinion and accept that the death penalty is neither the best nor the only solution to establishing justice and social order. And to top it all, capital punishment is expensive to maintain: taxpayers spend more to put a criminal to death than to provide lifetime incarceration. The inconsistent application of the death penalty in America, it can even be said, encourages crimes to be committed. Capital punishment is like a virus that weakens the social fiber instead of strengthens it. As an intellectual position, its flawed logic and false assumptions make it indefensible and difficult to accept by any person who wishes to uphold the truth, serve justice, and foster hope in a better society. As a strategy of criminology, it fails big time. It does not deter crime. It is ineffective. From an economic standpoint, it is not as efficient as it seems. It is expensive. If society wants to rebuild itself, abolishing the death penalty is one of the first steps that must be taken. It is far better to build a social order on the basis of hope, compassion, repentance, a humane sense of justice, and a total respect for every human life without exception. Reference List Amnesty International. (2007). Facts and figures on the death penalty. Retrieved July 6, 2007, from Anderson, D. (2005). The death penalty - a Defence. "Chapter 2: 17 Arguments for the Death Penalty". Updated May 2005. Retrieved 27 June 2007, from: DPIC/Death Penalty Information Center (2007). Death penalty information center fact sheet. Updated June 16, 2007. Retrieved 27 June 2007, from: Koukl, G. (1998). "Capital punishment is a just consequence for those who choose evil". At Issue Series. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from Thompson Gale database. LII/Legal Information Institute. (2007). Death Penalty. Retrieved June 27, 2007, fromhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Death_penalty Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1998). "Most experts believe the death penalty does not deter crime." At Issue Series. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from Thompson Gale database. Stewart, G. B. (1998). Improving its efficiency will not make the death penalty a deterrent. Opposing Viewpoints Digests. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from Thomson Gale database. The Innocence Project (2007). The faces of exoneration. Retrieved 6 July 2007, from: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Tucker, W. (2003). "Capital Punishment Reduces Murder Rates." In Does capital punishment deter crime Ed. Roman Espejo. At Issue Series. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved 18 June 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group. Read More